Legends and Lore - Nod To Realism

[mmadsen]

If his notion of a nod to realism is "a detailed list of polearms", then he's on completely the wrong track.

I agree completely. Similarly, he opens his piece with an odd idea of what's quintessentially simulationist:

Certainly, the roots of the game lie in simulation. The game distinguishes between the damage a sword does from a spear, for example.​

Really? Distinguishing the damage between a sword and a spear is profoundly simulationist? I have no trouble imagining a more "realistic" game -- say, Warhammer -- not bothering with that distinction.

Realism is important to the extent that the audience values it. If people are laughing at the absurdity of the rules, they need to be more realistic. If people give up the game because it's too complicated and not fun enough, then it's too realistic.

I agree that realism is important to the extent that the audience values it -- or recognizes it -- and I agree that if people are laughing at the absurdity of the rules, they need to be more realistic, but a game can most certainly be more complicated and less fun without being more realistic.

Realistic and detailed are not synonyms; neither are abstract and unrealistic. Many realistic war games are extremely abstract compared to D&D, especially compared to 4E. (Many are painfully detailed, too, of course.)

 

[ExploderWizard]

If 5e isn't capable of smoothly handling both ideals then it will fail. I and many others already play Pathfinder, so I don't need another game system that mimics what it does. Likewise, I play 4e as well and I won't drop it for a 5e that takes away some of the fun gameplay that I enjoy about it to appease the tyranny of "realism".

This is why trying to capture so diverse an audience with a single game system is the nigh- impossible task of game design.

Whatever 5E ends up settling on, it should be clearly designed towards its intended goals. No matter what these goals are, there will be some people unhappy with them.

 

[billd91]

And, yes, I do believe Monte has missed 10+ years of game design theory based on his recent articles here. Seriously, his brainstorming is reflective of the most rudimentary theory discussions found, I don't know, maybe on ENWorld.

Seriously: he's a public figure writing on behalf of the biggest RPG ever.

I think it's acceptable to criticize the guy. It's not like I'm taking potshots at anything about him personally. I think Monte's a swell guy. I follow him on Google+ and check in on his thoughts regularly.

I just don't think he's bringing anything new to the table for D&D, and it's mostly just rehash of the same old arguments of "realism" and "simulation". Wtf?

Monte, if you have concerns about this and want feedback, read up on the 1000s of threads where every RPG forum ever has had the same debate. There's nothing new here.

This article is not much more than masturbation. Nothing new, no serious insight into why realism is important (or not), what effects it has on actual play, and how D&D has been impacted by decisions made about "realism" or not.

I don't know what sort of effective circulation the Legends and Lore articles have on the WotC site, but I believe they are targeted at a much broader audience than EnWorld or any of the dank corners of the internet in which more in depth debates on game design occur. As such, I think a back to basics approach, looking at all sorts of fundamental elements of the game in general terms, is a fine approach. I'd even call it much less mentally masturbatory than most of the game design theory debates over the last 10 years which probably more than 90% of D&D players never heard of and don't care about.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Nod to realism by monte cook

This time I believe he addresses a very important point. Especially because it is one where 4e actually fails!

Realsism. how much is enough. how much is too much. And he honestly asks for opinions...

which leads me to the most interesting part of his article (bolded):

"Understanding where the current audience (as opposed to say, the 1974 audience, or the 2000 audience) stands when it comes to how much of a nod to reality is enough is something that's really important to me. I hope you'll answer this week's poll questions and let me know."

Why is it so critical for him to know? it smells like 5e design team is really beginning to work!

 

[Crazy Jerome]

But, regardless that many/most of the old movie/roleplaying tropes about medieval combat are false, the idea that it matters at all seems to be predicated here on a key point: that "immersiveness" is a paramount value in game play.

I don't think this has been justified in the slightest. I mean, I enjoy it, from time to time, even though I find it extremely hard to maintain with any edition of D&D. But I also find it entirely possible to enjoy play without it; what claim does "immersionism" really have to being the "paramount value"?

Logically, none. The claim to importance is all widespread popularity of preference. Immersion is the pizza of gaming. It is entirely possible to have weeks, months, and years of excellent eating with no pizza whatsoever. And there are plenty of meals that would be actively harmed by including pizza with them. But people wants their pizza.

They want it greasy and dry, with little fish and not. With red sauce and white. With onions, mushrooms, and green peppers and none or only some of those. They want it deep dish, ultra thin, and everything in between. And get 6 random gamers together, count yourself lucky if 3 different types of pizza will satisfy them.

So Monte was also very much on the right track saying that a certain amount of the nods must be supplied by the individual group. There just is no way for Joe to have anchovies embedded in his D&D throughout and Jane to never deal with them at all. Something has always got to give.

 

[Plane Sailing]

If that's hurtful to your D&D Celebrity fandom, apologies all around.

I love this website too. Not so much when people start throwing around insults like this though. It is like saying "I don't mean to be rude but you are stupid".

From the posts you've made in this thread you seem to have a bit of a chip on your shoulder, and I'm not sure why. I don't want to give you an outright suspension, but I'm certainly booting you from this thread.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Logically, none. The claim to importance is all widespread popularity of preference. Immersion is the pizza of gaming. It is entirely possible to have weeks, months, and years of excellent eating with no pizza whatsoever. And there are plenty of meals that would be actively harmed by including pizza with them. But people wants their pizza.

They want it greasy and dry, with little fish and not. With red sauce and white. With onions, mushrooms, and green peppers and none or only some of those. They want it deep dish, ultra thin, and everything in between. And get 6 random gamers together, count yourself lucky if 3 different types of pizza will satisfy them.

So Monte was also very much on the right track saying that a certain amount the nods must be supplied by the individual group. There just is no way for Joe to have anchovies embedded in his D&D throughout and Jane to never deal with them at all. Something has always got to give.

Gotta spread some around.

Serves you right for making me hungry.

 

[Tymophil]

Once again, I am not impressed by Monte Cook's column. As someone else said, he seemed to have missed years of game development thinking.

I think that D&D4 is not less pausible/realistc whatever than any other versions. In fact, I firmly believe this is the first edition where one could play something close to the journey of the Fellowship of the Ring. That is not realistic, but can produce a good tale to play.

But, there is one thing that D&D 4th Edition failed to do : translate its mechanisms into concepts that are clear for the players, and the game masters. For someone used to D&D, fourth edition doesn't make not much sense at first. Those hit points don't represent what they used to, this funny push effect, those strange healings by using combat powers... It's all weird.

But weird doesn't mean that that it cannot make sense in a "realistc" way. It is all a question of defining the effect in a believable way. After all, the Armour Class doen't make much sense and yet it is accepted. While healing surges are not, and they could make as much sense. It is, in my humbe opinion, because the AC is in D&D from day one, while the Healing Surge is a new kid on the block.

It would not have been wasted space to give a few lines to describe how a power would be described in a "realistic" way. Then, a new concept for hit point could have been defined. A cleric can inspire his mates by performing deeds clearly showing that his Diety is on their side (and raise their confidence, ie hp). A fighter display of might makes his enemies withdraw in fear, and so on...

I really miss designer notes in D&D...

 

[LurkAway]

Logically, none. The claim to importance is all widespread popularity of preference. Immersion is the pizza of gaming.

Then isn't everything pizza? Everything is a preference. Therefore everything is pizza. QED.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I agree that realism is important to the extent that the audience values it -- or recognizes it -- and I agree that if people are laughing at the absurdity of the rules, they need to be more realistic, but a game can most certainly be more complicated and less fun without being more realistic.

Realistic and detailed are not synonyms; neither are abstract and unrealistic. Many realistic war games are extremely abstract compared to D&D, especially compared to 4E. (Many are painfully detailed, too, of course.)

Realism and detail are not synonymous, but they are related. In general, I think pushes to make rpgs more realistic have added complexity. I also think that the biggest pushback against realism is based on the amount of work people want to put into understanding the rules. There are other issues there, though.

The example I was thinking of is the tracking of health and injury. Almost anything designed to create a "more realistic" description of the topic than hit points involves making the game much more detailed and complex, which explains why D&D is still stuck on a videogame health bar. For other aspects of the game, it's different.